m not sure what image everyone HAS of a criminal but its usually someone poor with a crappy living standard. Not a gangsta!, Mobster, elite commando gone bad, rouge merc or spys from russia! Its a poor jo shmo with no money.
Onfortunately somebody who attacks people is insane enough to make one even if they are illegal
You don't need connections to get a gun where it's banned, all you need is youtube and your average house's cleaning items or if you have no house and by connection no computer, all you need is a public library and 15 USD or about 7 euros or 8 pounds, I've found more than I would need to make a rifle on the ground on some days.
this says that britain and australia have higher crime rates than america
now the question is, are these high crime rates in spite of gun control or because of it, all signs point to: because of it
Okay, now i'll give you your reason: if you were to decide to kill someone it would mean you don't care about the legal reprocussions of it, and a little bit more of a fine ain't gonna make a difference
Observe the insanity of this
I'm going to create a hypothetical psychopath named phil
now, phil wants to kill somebody, we'll call this other guy bob. now, bob, being a very generic person living in britain obviously has no gun
phil on the other hand has no qualms about killing bob and doesn't care about the legal reprocussions. Suddenly phil realizes that making a gun to kill bob with carries a legal penalty with it, He then decides not to get a gun, and not kill bob despite the extra penalty for gun ownership being a very low fine compared to the one for killing him.
This is what you are thinking when you encourage "control"
the next one will be about what really happens
this is what would really happen. phil wants to kill bob but doesn't want to get the extra penalty for owning a gun. he wants to get the jump on bob as is necessary to kill with things from around the house, so threats are never issued and he just starts with the stabbing
This third one happens in america and leads to a happier ending than the second, and is actually what would happen unlike the 1st
phil owns a gun but bob doesn't, so phil begins with stage one of murder:threats. Bob then calls the police and tells them that phil threatened to kill him, Phil is then dragged to court where he is given the punishment for murder because of a declaration of intent, a week later bob gets a rifle so he can go hunting with his friends, and they all lived happily ever after, except for phil who was rotting in jail for what could hypothetically be for the rest of his life, the end.
same goes with robbery,
most robbers use knives bats or crowbars in america. robber threatens shopkeep with a knife shopkeep pulls gun and the robbers fight or flight reaction defaults to flight, the shopkeeper may or may not call the police after this point, it doesn't really effect him. Life goes on as usual the next day, with the exception of slightly skewed topic choices in peoples conversations. the end
